Painting a plane. What are the rules?

SCCutler said:
Cracking wise and jerking them around will not help you (or the process).
Click to expand...
You got that right. :) when you want to get out of the hole, stop digging.
 
bradg33 said:
There's nothing wrong with an automotive guy painting a plane IF there is an A&P supervising and signing-off as required by 43.3.
Click to expand...
That is not the issue the FEDS will be worried about.
 
bradg33 said:
Is he working under the supervision of an A&P? If not, he's violating Part 43. While we all like to pretend like we can do whatever we want to an airplane so long as we don't fly it until a mechanic signs off, that's not what the regs actually say. 14 CFR 43.3 says that only a mechanic, or person working under the supervision of a mechanic, may perform maintenance on an airplane. There's an exception for preventive maintenance, but that only applies to someone holding a pilot certificate. Non-pilots who are not working under the supervision of a mechanic cannot perform maintenance on an airplane. We can, of course, argue about when the collection of parts stops being an airplane and starts being just a pile of junk, but I don't think that's the case here.
Click to expand...

But what isn't said in 43.3 is the degree of supervision required. Does it require the A&P/IA to be there the entire time or can he simply inspect the finished work and sign it off? Lots of wiggle room there depending how much the certificated technician trusts the one who performs the work. I once had to deal with an owner who did high quality work; the problem was he never logged it or told me what he had done. Much of that work was out of the limits allowed under preventive maintenance. I had to tell him I would no longer annual his plane because I wasn't going to put my certificate in jeopardy. Were the feds to ask me what he had done, I could honestly say I had no knowledge of his actions.
 
Hopefully, the original guy in this story deregistered the plane. If not, he's in a world of hurt as the FAA will consider him the current owner. Bill of sales and other title documents are required to be filed with Joklahoma city.

And I wouldn't be so sure the FAA wouldn't pursue a civil action against someone who doesn't hold certificates.
 
James331 said:
Nope

Who says he's ever going to fly it.

Who says there wasn't a AP checking in on him.
Click to expand...
We do not know a lot of what's been said or by whom.
But when the Feds ask "who owns this AC" the person who answers "I do" is going to be the guy in the spot light.
"who owns this AC" ... answer.... "We have not decided yet"
Best to play dumb. because really that is the way this got started.
 
Norman said:
So, please tell us, in your opinion, what they are worried about.
Click to expand...
they are going to worry about who they can blame. and seeing as their is no owner established yet. that is where they will start.
depending upon the answers and attitude they get it will go up or down from there.
 
Don't pee into the wind. If the plane is being worked on properly show them the proper paperwork and they'll go away. If it's not then sort the situation out. Playing hard to get or generally trying to avoid them is just going to make it a longer and more painful experience.

Regardless get an aviation attorney to give you proper advice here. Lots of good suggestions (including mine) but don't take legal advice from random people on the intertubes.
 
Norman said:
But what isn't said in 43.3 is the degree of supervision required. Does it require the A&P/IA to be there the entire time or can he simply inspect the finished work and sign it off? Lots of wiggle room there depending how much the certificated technician trusts the one who performs the work. I once had to deal with an owner who did high quality work; the problem was he never logged it or told me what he had done. Much of that work was out of the limits allowed under preventive maintenance. I had to tell him I would no longer annual his plane because I wasn't going to put my certificate in jeopardy. Were the feds to ask me what he had done, I could honestly say I had no knowledge of his actions.
Click to expand...

I totally agree that there's a lot of wiggle room there. But unless OP can actually identify an A&P that is doing the supervising, he's out of bounds. I do a lot of work on my own plane under the supervision of my A&P. But I always let him know exactly what I'm doing and he inspects when I'm done. He physically supervises when necessary. 43.3(d) says physical supervision is only required to the extent necessary to ensure the work is being done correctly. But you've still got to have an identified "supervisor," because that person has to be available to you if you have questions per the reg.
 
Jason Little said:
Well as long as it legally belongs to my pilot friend, he is allowed to do preventative maintenance correct? Refinishing of aircraft?
If he is allowed to do preventative maintenance then he is allowed to designate someone to help or no as long as he is supervising? What if he was sick and couldn't physically do the work?
Click to expand...
That is not what the FAA is pizzed about. They are POed about you not allowing them into the hangar. Big screw up right there. they have a right to inspect any AC they choose at any time they choose.
Now that you have kicked the bull in the a$$, guess what he will do?
 
Jason Little said:
Well as long as it legally belongs to my pilot friend, he is allowed to do preventative maintenance correct? Refinishing of aircraft?
If he is allowed to do preventative maintenance then he is allowed to designate someone to help or no as long as he is supervising? What if he was sick and couldn't physically do the work?
Click to expand...
Refinishing an airplane is not preventive maintenance. Those items that are are listed in 14 CFR 43 Appendix A. It's a long list and does include SOME painting, but explicitly excludes "balanced surfaces" and "disassembling primary structures."

You are clearly in over your head, and you're doing a lot of stuff wrong. You are going to get the owner royally screwed. Maybe yourself, too.
 
Jason Little said:
Well as long as it legally belongs to my pilot friend, he is allowed to do preventative maintenance correct? Refinishing of aircraft?
If he is allowed to do preventative maintenance then he is allowed to designate someone to help or no as long as he is supervising? What if he was sick and couldn't physically do the work?
Click to expand...
Preventative maintenance is covered under part 43 appendix A part C

(9) Refinishing decorative coating of fuselage, balloon baskets, wings tail group surfaces (excluding balanced control surfaces), fairings, cowlings, landing gear, cabin, or cockpit interior when removal or disassembly of any primary structure or operating system is not required.

If you think what you are doing is legit, show it to the FAA and be done with it.
 
Jason Little said:
Well as long as it legally belongs to my pilot friend, he is allowed to do preventative maintenance correct? Refinishing of aircraft?
If he is allowed to do preventative maintenance then he is allowed to designate someone to help or no as long as he is supervising? What if he was sick and couldn't physically do the work?
Click to expand...

Uh...no. Read AC 43-12A:

The following are authorized to perform preventive maintenance and other maintenance:
• The holders of mechanic and repairman certificates
• Persons working under the supervision of these mechanics and repairman
• Repair stations certificated under part 145
• Air carriers certificated under 14 CFR parts 121 and 135

In addition to those persons listed in paragraph 3a, § 43.3(g), (h), and (i) authorize the holder of a pilot certificate issued under part 61 to perform preventive maintenance. Section 43.7 limits the privilege to persons holding at least a private or sport pilot certificate and § 91.407(a)(1) prohibits operation of the aircraft unless approved for return to service. Further, pilots may only approve for return to service preventive maintenance which they themselves have accomplished

Being a certificate holder doesn't allow him to "delegate a buddy" to paint a plane. Unless that buddy is a certificate holder than can also sign off on the change.
 
Last edited:
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Preventative maintenance is covered under part 43 appendix A part C

(9) Refinishing decorative coating of fuselage, balloon baskets, wings tail group surfaces (excluding balanced control surfaces), fairings, cowlings, landing gear, cabin, or cockpit interior when removal or disassembly of any primary structure or operating system is not required.

If you think what you are doing is legit, show it to the FAA and be done with it.
Click to expand...

It's only covered if a pilot themself did the work under a very limited scope. Is the OP a private pilot or sport pilot? If they are just someone from the area that can paint that doesn't quite cut it...
 
Well just talked to an aviation attorney. They said I was well within my rights to use the 4th for denying them access to my hangar. Doesn't mean it didn't upset them tho. I know they have to follow up on complaints but that doesn't give them more rights than allowed by law.
 
Also wanted to add. I'm working under the guidance of a certified a&p. He's coming to do the balancing etc after I get them painted. Then he will reinstall. So I don't see what the issue is. Maybe I'm fine. Don't know. Nobody is going to be flying a plane that hasn't been properly returned to service by a credentialed mechanic sanctioned by the faa. I guess my question is for the time in between it was flying and will fly again.
 
Exactly what does the FAA feels like the "paint wasn't done properly" mean? The person, the process, the materials used? Just what is their issue?
 
Jason Little said:
Well just talked to an aviation attorney. They said I was well within my rights to use the 4th for denying them access to my hangar. Doesn't mean it didn't upset them tho. I know they have to follow up on complaints but that doesn't give them more rights than allowed by law.
Click to expand...

The 4th amendment absolutely permits you to refuse access. However, 49 USC 44709 says the FAA can re-inspect any aircraft when it wants. That doesn't mean they can do it without any notice, but when they make a reasonable request to reinspect the airplane, you tell them "no" at the risk of the airworthiness certificate.
 
Jason Little said:
Well just talked to an aviation attorney. They said I was well within my rights to use the 4th for denying them access to my hangar. Doesn't mean it didn't upset them tho. I know they have to follow up on complaints but that doesn't give them more rights than allowed by law.
Click to expand...

Good on you for checking. It's your hangar but it's your friend's plane. Where is your friend in all this? Have you gotten any input from him as to how he wants to proceed? Being in a hangar doesn't protect the plane forever.
 
Funny to me, if a pilot or mechanic calls a lawyer to get advice the feds get all pisy about it, yet the FAA has hundreds, thousands of lawyers working for them just to investigate those pilots or mechanics.
 
Last edited:
I've read all this but would like to emphasize a point that was made IIRC only once:

The OP is not the owner of the airplane. He has been contracted to paint the airplane ONLY. He has no right to provide ANYONE access to the airplane and its paperwork without the prior permission of the owner. It's no different than if he decided to let a pilot buddy go fly it; that's also something he can't do without permission.

So IMO he simply tells the FAA that he is not the owner of the airplane and he is not authorized to provide access or paperwork to them. He's not even authorized to provide contact information for the airplane owner IMO, but playing that card might annoy the bear.
 
bradg33 said:
I totally agree that there's a lot of wiggle room there. But unless OP can actually identify an A&P that is doing the supervising, he's out of bounds. I do a lot of work on my own plane under the supervision of my A&P. But I always let him know exactly what I'm doing and he inspects when I'm done. He physically supervises when necessary. 43.3(d) says physical supervision is only required to the extent necessary to ensure the work is being done correctly. But you've still got to have an identified "supervisor," because that person has to be available to you if you have questions per the reg.
Click to expand...

So I'm a pilot doing the work. The IA trusts me to do it correctly and in accordance with the FAR's. I see no requirement he must be looking over my shoulder every minute. He's the one who is going to sign off my work and take responsibility. A degree of trust is imperative.
 
If somebody makes a complaint the FAA has to follow up on it. Wait to hear what they have to say before your imagination gets the better of you.

You started a thread with partial information. I suspect you got exactly what you wanted out of it. What a waste of time.
 
It sounds to me (and I may be wrong...I usually am) that the FAA has received a report that "a" plane has been improperly painted...not a specific plane. If that is the case, I think there is nothing wrong with telling them to get bent. Sounds like a fishing expedition.
 
Zeldman said:
Funny to me, if a pilot or mechanic calls a lawyer to get advice the feds get all ****y about it, yet the FAA has hundreds, thousands of lawyers working for them just to investigate those pilots or mechanics.
Click to expand...

And there in lies the trouble.In the FAA's eyes you are guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. I've had that happen once regarding a missing placard. Only a dated photograph of the instrument panel would have proven the inspector wrong. His word was taken over mine even though it was not fact.
 
Zeldman said:
Funny to me, if a pilot or mechanic calls a lawyer to get advice the feds get all ****y about it, yet the FAA has hundreds, thousands of lawyers working for them just to investigate those pilots or mechanics.
Click to expand...
Contrary to popular opinion, most Feds I've dealt with simply want to get everybody in compliance with regulations, at least when dealing with non-commercial operators. Usually that just takes a few words of explanation and they're on their way.

It's when people get belligerent and say "absolutely no way, no how," which is the impression that I get from the OP, that the Feds have to lawyer up on their side. It's pretty hard to shut that fire hose off once it's opened up.

I've also seen a case where the owner lawyered up for a simple logbook request after he inadvertently missed an annual, and the ASI had to make periodic requests through the lawyer, costing the owner unnecessary expense while his airplane was unflyable for about 8 months rather than a couple of weeks.
 
Last edited:
Norman said:
So I'm a pilot doing the work. The IA trusts me to do it correctly and in accordance with the FAR's. I see no requirement he must be looking over my shoulder every minute. He's the one who is going to sign off my work and take responsibility. A degree of trust is imperative.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, the A&P doesn't need to be looking over your should, unless the A&P decides that he needs to. There's, of course, certain work the A&P can't really inspect once it's done (can't see the internals once it's put back together). In those cases, the A&P is supposed to actually supervise, but the A&P has a lot of discretion in what needs actually over-the-shoulder supervision vs. look it over later.
 
This just all seems.... "Fishy" at this point. I read this entire thread, and I think enough people have clearly pointed out that If OP has no ties to ownership, nor bears any certificate.... Why he doesn't simply call the FAA / respond to the letter and say "hey look... This ain't my plane..."

I've yet to see a response from the OP on this point.

Furthermore, the original post seemed to "allude" to the fact the he was not the owner and that his "buddy" is now somehow the owner. Is that really the case? Is the plane solely the rightful property of your buddy? Or is something else going on that the paperwork won't show him as the owner?

I fail to have seen proper responses from the OP on this, and therefore that puts into question why either 1) this hasn't already been put to bed by the OP informing the FAA that he is neither an owner nor someone authorized to grant access to the plane / logs. And 2) where the "buddy" is in all of this, and why he's not taking ownership of the situation.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
What's a proper response?
I'm here for learning more about the rules so I don't have to sweat about it. Seems juvenile to make assumptions.
Apparently anyone can work on a plane provided they have guidance from the correctly certified person. That's what I get out of all this.
 
Jason Little said:
What's a proper response?
I'm here for learning more about the rules so I don't have to sweat about it. Seems juvenile to make assumptions.
Apparently anyone can work on a plane provided they have guidance from the correctly certified person. That's what I get out of all this.
Click to expand...

Correct and if "you" are not "owner" nor do you have any ratings, then the FAA needs to know that to get them off your back. The person who should be talking to the FAA about all of this is the owner of the aircraft or the A&P certifying the work (which its my understanding, one is not involved right now anyways).

In either case, the letter they've written you etc, is only getting excecorbated because they have not been properly informed that you are not the owner nor the A&P and that you do not have he authority to show them any logs / airworthiness certification etc.... That's the owners reaponsibility.

You can tell your friend (the owner) that this situation has occurred and that they need to to talk to him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Dave Theisen said:
Exactly what does the FAA feels like the "paint wasn't done properly" mean? The person, the process, the materials used? Just what is their issue?
Click to expand...
The FAA has no guidance on what the materials that can be used to paint. they do require you to follow the procedures given as to return to service.
 
USAF-LT-G said:
Correct and if "you" are not "owner" nor do you have any ratings, then the FAA needs to know that to get them off your back. The person who should be talking to the FAA about all of this is the owner of the aircraft or the A&P certifying the work (which its my understanding, one is not involved right now anyways).

In either case, the letter they've written you etc, is only getting excecorbated because they have not been properly informed that you are not the owner nor the A&P and that you do not have he authority to show them any logs / airworthiness certification etc.... That's the owners reaponsibility.

You can tell your friend (the owner) that this situation has occurred and that they need to to talk to him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That's true.
 
Jason Little said:
So I don't see what the issue is. .
Click to expand...
The issue is you denied the FAA access to the aircraft.
You should have simply said, this is my hangar but not my aircraft. and provided the FAA with the N number and owner's contact info.

They would have simply contacted the owner, then this would have not been your problem.
 
Norman said:
So I'm a pilot doing the work. The IA trusts me to do it correctly and in accordance with the FAR's. I see no requirement he must be looking over my shoulder every minute. He's the one who is going to sign off my work and take responsibility. A degree of trust is imperative.
Click to expand...

Would you want to debate this paragraph with the feds when they can't get access to the aircraft?

(d) A person working under the supervision of a holder of a mechanic or repairman certificate may perform the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations that his supervisor is authorized to perform, if the supervisor personally observes the work being done to the extent necessary to ensure that it is being done properly and if the supervisor is readily available, in person, for consultation. However, this paragraph does not authorize the performance of any inspection required by Part 91 or Part 125 of this chapter or any inspection performed after a major repair or alteration.
 
Not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. If the letter wasn't registered, certified, or delivery confirmed by another method, it doesn't exist - the Post Office is the sender's agent. You never got it. . . If it comes to blows, I imagine you'll get a more "traceable" communication as the lynching progresses.

Or, offer to pull the plane out the hangar, if you want to - after five PM on a weekday, or anytime Saturday or Sunday. Send the offer registered mail . That's reasonable accomodation, for a working man. Don't converse, just observe. Nothing to be gained by talking to them - let the owner and A&P do the talking. They have questions for you, refer 'em to your attorney.

More or less free, if you've voted recently - raise Hell with your congressman, paint the FAA as evil as possible - spin it hard, without lying - give them a congressional inquiry to deal with. If they come down harder after that, do it again, and scream about retaliation, start with some FOIA requests about similiar enforcements, etc.

If you have free time, you can have a lot if fun with this, if messin' with bureacrats amuses you.
 
Sundancer said:
Not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. If the letter wasn't registered, certified, or delivery confirmed by another method, it doesn't exist - the Post Office is the sender's agent. You never got it. . . If it comes to blows, I imagine you'll get a more "traceable" communication as the lynching progresses.

Or, offer to pull the plane out the hangar, if you want to - after five PM on a weekday, or anytime Saturday or Sunday. Send the offer registered mail . That's reasonable accomodation, for a working man. Don't converse, just observe. Nothing to be gained by talking to them - let the owner and A&P do the talking. They have questions for you, refer 'em to your attorney.

More or less free, if you've voted recently - raise Hell with your congressman, paint the FAA as evil as possible - spin it hard, without lying - give them a congressional inquiry to deal with. If they come down harder after that, do it again, and scream about retaliation, start with some FOIA requests about similiar enforcements, etc.

If you have free time, you can have a lot if fun with this, if messin' with bureacrats amuses you.
Click to expand...

Except they can simply revoke the airworthiness cert at any time they want for no more cause than they already have, so no point to antagonize em!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top